Case 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD Document 109-1 Filed 05/22/18 PageID.573 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`David A. Nelson (pro hac vice)
`(Ill. Bar No. 6209623)
`davenelson@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700,
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Telephone: (312) 705-7400
`Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
`
`Karen P. Hewitt (SBN 145309)
`kphewitt@jonesday.com
`Randall E. Kay (SBN 149369)
`rekay@jonesday.com
`Kelly V. O'Donnell (SBN 257266)
`kodonnell@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY
`4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
`San Diego, California 92121
`Telephone: (858) 314-1200
`Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
`
`David Ben-Meir (SBN 192028)
`david.ben-meir@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Daniel Scott Leventhal (pro hac vice)
`(Tex. Bar No. 24050923)
`daniel.leventhal@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Eric Brinn Hall (pro hac vice)
`(Tex. Bar No. 24012767)
`eric.hall@nortonrosefulbright.com
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
`Houston, Texas 77010
`Telephone: (713) 651-8360
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Qualcomm
`Incorporated
`
`[Additional counsel identified on
`signature page]
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` CASE NO. 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD
`
`QUALCOMM’S MEMORANDUM
`OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
`ASSERT ADDITIONAL CLAIMS
`IN ITS PRELIMINARY
`INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`Date:
`Time:
`
`QUALCOMM’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ASSERT
`ADDITIONAL CLAIMS IN ITS PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INCORPORATED,
`
`
`vs.
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD Document 109-1 Filed 05/22/18 PageID.574 Page 2 of 8
`
`Place: Courtroom 13A
`
`Judge: Dana M. Sabraw
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`QUALCOMM’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ASSERT
`ADDITIONAL CLAIMS IN ITS PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD Document 109-1 Filed 05/22/18 PageID.575 Page 3 of 8
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) requests leave to assert
`
`infringement of twelve total claims in this case. Qualcomm’s proposal affords it two
`
`claims more than the ten currently allotted by the Court’s Case Management Order.
`
`(Doc. No. 98 at 2)
`
`Qualcomm’s request is supported by good cause. Two additional claims
`
`imposes an insignificant amount of additional work, but could have a significant
`
`impact on the case. Without those claims, distinct improvements over the prior art
`
`may be left out of the case for Apple to continue willfully infringing. Allowing
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`Qualcomm to assert three claims from each of the ’356, ’674, ’002, and ’633 Patents
`
`11
`
`affords Qualcomm the opportunity to assert an independent claim with protecting
`
`12
`
`dependents from each patent that remains at issue in this case. In order to balance the
`
`13
`
`burden on the Court and Apple, Qualcomm has agreed not to assert any claims of the
`
`14
`
`’336 Patent. Thus, Qualcomm’s proposal is in keeping with the Court’s directive to
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`narrow the case.
`II.
`
`Factual and Procedural Background
`
`On November 29, 2017, Qualcomm filed its Complaint in this Action asserting
`
`18
`
`infringement of forty-six claims of five patents : U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356 (“the ’356
`
`19
`
`patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,473,336 (“the ’336 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674
`
`20
`
`(“the ’674 patent”), U.S. Patent 7,693,002 (“the ’002 patent”), and U.S. Patent No.
`
`21
`
`9,552,633 (“the ’633 patent”). The Asserted Patents relate to components of mobile
`
`22
`
`devices (such as the accused iPhones and iPads) that enhance signal processing,
`
`23
`
`improve power management, and enhance photographic images taken on the device.
`
`24
`
`The Complaint provides details of Qualcomm’s infringement theories and
`
`25
`
`demonstrates that the claim elements are present in at least the Apple iPhone 7, Apple
`
`26
`
`iPhone 7 Plus, Apple iPhone 8, Apple iPhone 8 Plus, and Apple iPhone X.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`On November 30, 2017, Qualcomm filed a Complaint with the International
`
`Trade Commission regarding Apple’s infringement of the same patents in suit. The
`
`-1-
`Case No. 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD
`QUALCOMM’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ASSERT
`ADDITIONAL CLAIMS IN ITS PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD Document 109-1 Filed 05/22/18 PageID.576 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`Complaint was instituted as Investigation No. 337-TA-1093 on January 3, 2018. That
`
`Investigation remains ongoing. Fact discovery closes on May 29, 2018 and expert
`
`discovery closes on July 13, 2018. There is no narrowing order in that case and the
`
`parties continue to litigate fifty asserted claims.
`
`On March 1, 2018, the Court held a case management conference in this matter
`
`and, thereafter, issued a Case Management Order. The Case Management Order
`
`directs Qualcomm to select no more than two claims per patent or no more than ten
`
`claims total for its infringement contentions. In view of the Court’s Order, Qualcomm
`
`has identified the following claims to be litigated in this Action:1
`
`’356 Patent
`
`’674 Patent
`
`’002 Patent
`
`’633 Patent
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 8, and 11
`
`Claims 1, 5, and 12
`
`Claims 2, 17, and 37
`
`Claims 3, 22, and 29
`
`Qualcomm requests leave to assert three claims from each of the ’356 patent,
`
`the ’674 patent, the ’002 patent, and the ’633 patent. To balance its request,
`
`Qualcomm will not include any asserted claims of the ’336 Patent. Thus, in total,
`
`Qualcomm is only seeking to assert 12 total claims in this case.2
`
`As of the date of this filing, Apple has not taken a position on whether it will
`
`oppose Qualcomm’s request for leave to assert two additional claims. (Clark Decl.
`
`Ex. A.)
`III. Argument
`
`
`1 In the event that the Court does not grant leave to assert twelve claims,
`Qualcomm will not asset claim 5 of the ’674 patent or claim 8 of the ’356 patent.
`
`2 In another case before this Court, Case No. 17-1375, Apple is asserting twelve
`claims and currently seeking leave to assert up to twenty-four. (Doc. No. 171.)
`
`-2-
`Case No. 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD
`QUALCOMM’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ASSERT
`ADDITIONAL CLAIMS IN ITS PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD Document 109-1 Filed 05/22/18 PageID.577 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`Allowing Qualcomm to assert 12 claims across the narrowed set of four patents
`
`is fair and reasonable. This reflects almost a 75% reduction (from forty-six to twelve)
`
`in the number of claims originally asserted in Qualcomm’s Complaint. Qualcomm’s
`
`request to assert just three claims per patent across four patents reflects a good faith
`
`effort at significantly narrowing the issues in this dispute as contemplated by the
`
`Court’s Case Management Order.
`
`Allowing Qualcomm to assert three claims from each of the ’356 patent, the
`
`’674 patent, the ’002 patent, and the ’633 patent is a minor increase that will not
`
`prejudice Apple, but is important for ensuring that the unique features of Qualcomm’s
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`inventions that Apple has infringed and continues to willfully infringe are reflected in
`
`11
`
`this case. For the ’356 patent, the ’674 patent, and the ’633 patent, Qualcomm is only
`
`12
`
`seeking to assert one independent claim and two dependent claims. For the ’002
`
`13
`
`patent Qualcomm would assert two independent claims and one dependent. Each
`
`14
`
`asserted claim reflects a unique aspect of Qualcomm’s inventions and therefore have
`
`15
`
`unique value to Qualcomm’s causes of action. This is particularly true because Apple
`
`16
`
`may introduce new non-infringement theories or evidence that it did not disclose in
`
`17
`
`the ITC Action. Similarly, Qualcomm does not – and cannot – know at this stage how
`
`18
`
`Apple will value or attempt to limit damages and other remedies in this case.
`
`19
`
`Similarly, while Qualcomm has some sense of the prior art that Apple may rely
`
`20
`
`on to challenge the validity of Qualcomm’s claims, Apple is no bound by its election
`
`21
`
`of prior art in the parallel ITC Action. Requiring Qualcomm to further reduce the
`
`22
`
`number of asserted claims at this stage prior to Apple’s provision of narrowed
`
`23
`
`invalidity contentions would be highly prejudicial to Qualcomm. In addition, based
`
`24
`
`on the alleged prior art identified in the ITC Action, Qualcomm believes that each of
`
`25
`
`the proposed claims offer unique distinctions over the prior art and are supported by
`
`26
`
`specific evidence of willful infringement.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`QUALCOMM’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ASSERT
`ADDITIONAL CLAIMS IN ITS PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD Document 109-1 Filed 05/22/18 PageID.578 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Qualcomm hereby seeks leave to assert two additional claims, for
`
`ta total of twelve claims, for the ’356 patent, the ’674 patent, the ’002 patent, and the
`
`’633 patent.
`
`DATED: May 22, 2018
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: s/ Michelle Ann Clark
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`David A. Nelson (pro hac vice)
`(Ill. Bar No. 6209623)
`davenelson@quinnemanuel.com
`191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Telephone: (312) 705-7400
`Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
`
`Sean S. Pak (SBN 219032)
`seanpak@quinnemanuel.com
`Michael D. Powell (SBN 202850)
`mikepowell@quinnemanuel.com
`Michelle Ann Clark (SBN 243777)
`michelleclark@quinnemanuel.com
`Andrew M. Holmes (SBN 260475)
`drewholmes@quinnemanuel.com
`50 California St, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: (415) 875-6600
`Facsimile: (415) 857-6700
`
`
`Patrick D. Curran (SBN 241630)
`patrickcurran@quinnemanuel.com
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Telephone: (212) 849-7000
`Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
`
`Yury Kapgan (SBN 218366)
`yurykapgan@quinnemanuel.com
`Scott Watson (SBN 219147)
`scottwatson@quinnemanuel.com
`Michael Louis Fazio (SBN 228601)
`michaelfazio@quinnemanuel.com
`Joseph Sarles (SBN 254750)
`josephsarles@quinnemanuel.com
`Valerie A. Lozano (SBN 260020)
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`QUALCOMM’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ASSERT
`ADDITIONAL CLAIMS IN ITS PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD
`
`10
`
`11
`
`
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD Document 109-1 Filed 05/22/18 PageID.579 Page 7 of 8
`
`valerielozano@quinnemanuel.com
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Telephone: 213-443-3000
`Facsimile: 213-443-3100
`
`JONES DAY
`Karen P. Hewitt (SBN 145309)
`kphewitt@jonesday.com
`Randall E. Kay (SBN 149369)
`rekay@jonesday.com
`John D. Kinton (SBN 203250)
`jkinton@jonesday.com
`4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
`San Diego, California 92121
`Telephone: (858) 314-1200
`Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
`
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`Richard S. Zembek (Pro Hac Vice)
`richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Eric B. Hall (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`(Tex. Bar No. 24012767)
`eric.hall@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Daniel S. Leventhal (pro hac vice
`forthcoming) (Tex. Bar No. 24050923)
`daniel.leventhal@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Talbot R. Hansum (pro hac vice
`forthcoming)
`(Tex. Bar No. 24084586)
`talbot.hansum@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Fulbright Tower
`1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77010
`Telephone: (713) 651-5151
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`QUALCOMM’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ASSERT
`ADDITIONAL CLAIMS IN ITS PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD Document 109-1 Filed 05/22/18 PageID.580 Page 8 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document has been served on May 22, 2018, to all counsel of record who are
`
`deemed to have consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`Executed on May 22, 2018, at San Francisco, California.
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Michelle Ann Clark
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`QUALCOMM’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ASSERT
`ADDITIONAL CLAIMS IN ITS PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD
`
`
`
`